Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

pythonPackages.seqnmf: init at 0.1.2 #77874

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

tbenst
Copy link
Contributor

@tbenst tbenst commented Jan 17, 2020

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nix-review --run "nix-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.
Notify maintainers

cc @

@tbenst tbenst changed the title <!-- Nixpkgs has a lot of new incoming Pull Requests, but not enough people to review this constant stream. Even if you aren't a committer, we would appreciate reviews of other PRs, especially simple ones like package updates. Just testing the relevant package/service and leaving a comment saying what you tested, how you tested it and whether it worked would be great. List of open PRs: <https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pulls>, for more about reviewing contributions: <https://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixpkgs/trunk/manual/latest/download/1/nixpkgs/manual.html#chap-reviewing-contributions>. Reviewing isn't mandatory, but it would help out a lot and reduce the average time-to-merge for all of us. Thanks a lot if you do! --> ###### Motivation for this change pythonPackages.seqnmf: init at 0.1.2 Jan 17, 2020
Comment on lines +26 to +27
# no tests
doCheck=false;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looking at https://github.com/ejolly/seqnmf, it looks like they don't have any tests, and haven't had an update in 18+ months :(

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are no tests included. Please try to checkout from source and check if they have unit tests, and try to run them. Unit tests give a good indication that they package has a high degree of validity and correctness given the python package set.

If tests are not available, then please use pythonImportsCheck to import the most important modules. This isn't as good as unit tests, but will usually give a good indication of run-time errors.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jul 16, 2020

Hello, I'm a bot and I thank you in the name of the community for your contributions.

Nixpkgs is a busy repository, and unfortunately sometimes PRs get left behind for too long. Nevertheless, we'd like to help committers reach the PRs that are still important. This PR has had no activity for 180 days, and so I marked it as stale, but you can rest assured it will never be closed by a non-human.

If this is still important to you and you'd like to remove the stale label, we ask that you leave a comment. Your comment can be as simple as "still important to me". But there's a bit more you can do:

If you received an approval by an unpriviledged maintainer and you are just waiting for a merge, you can @ mention someone with merge permissions and ask them to help. You might be able to find someone relevant by using Git blame on the relevant files, or via GitHub's web interface. You can see if someone's a member of the nixpkgs-committers team, by hovering with the mouse over their username on the web interface, or by searching them directly on the list.

If your PR wasn't reviewed at all, it might help to find someone who's perhaps a user of the package or module you are changing, or alternatively, ask once more for a review by the maintainer of the package/module this is about. If you don't know any, you can use Git blame on the relevant files, or GitHub's web interface to find someone who touched the relevant files in the past.

If your PR has had reviews and nevertheless got stale, make sure you've responded to all of the reviewer's requests / questions. Usually when PR authors show responsibility and dedication, reviewers (privileged or not) show dedication as well. If you've pushed a change, it's possible the reviewer wasn't notified about your push via email, so you can always officially request them for a review, or just @ mention them and say you've addressed their comments.

Lastly, you can always ask for help at our Discourse Forum, or more specifically, at this thread or at #nixos' IRC channel.

@stale stale bot added the 2.status: stale https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/.github/STALE-BOT.md label Jul 16, 2020
@stale stale bot removed the 2.status: stale https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/.github/STALE-BOT.md label Aug 10, 2020
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jun 5, 2021

I marked this as stale due to inactivity. → More info

@stale stale bot added the 2.status: stale https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/.github/STALE-BOT.md label Jun 5, 2021
@onny
Copy link
Contributor

onny commented Sep 7, 2022

Please rebase

@onny onny marked this pull request as draft September 7, 2022 06:35
@AndersonTorres
Copy link
Member

Closing as dead

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants